Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
German treatment of POW's
Options
Comments
-
Posted this in the Documentaries section. It's a vivid account of what it was like on the ground for German soldiers in Russia, told by the soldiers themselves, using their amatuer footage.
Mein Krieg
The issue of Russian POW's is discussed @ 1:04:25 and from the point of view of the soldier on the ground, the logistical nightmare is evident.
Edit: Just on the issue of adherence to the Geneva Convention etc....
Anthony Beevor suggested that soon after the German invasion in 1941 an offer was made by the USSR for a reciprocal adherence to the Hague conventions, but that this offer was left unanswered by the Germans. Beevor, Stalingrad. p60.
However, Tolstoy suggests that the Germans, as well as the International Red Cross made several efforts to regulate reciprocal treatment of prisoners until early 1942, but received no answers from the Soviet side. Nikolai Tolstoy. The Secret Betrayal. 1977
...more shades of grey, as it seems is always the case in war.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »If you have a problem with the Author's (Ferguson)survival figures quoted, then surely you should put forward more of an argument against him. In fact the only counter argument you make is that his figures appear on wikipedia. In simple terms try to back up your point. If you have alternative figures, please post them.
Thats not my view. In future if you wish to attribute a view to me I would prefer you to quote what I have said.
I agree that this would be more appropriate on the thread dealing with Soviet/ German POW's. Perhaps you might notice that I was responding to a question- Perhaps I should have got permission from you to respond to it!
I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context. Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).0 -
I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context.
No problem with figures being questioned. My problem is you do not propose an alternative view. Perhaps you will???Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).
Again I put it that you are questioning these figures without proposing an alternative.
Also you are questioning the authors capabilities. I believe he is professor of History at Harvard University? Are you saying that only people who focus solely on Barbarossa can comment on the Russian campaign? If not you need to either substantiate your critisism of this author with proper evidence or alternatively drop your argument- the choice is yours...0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »No problem with figures being questioned. My problem is you do not propose an alternative view. Perhaps you will???
That is not the way it works.jonniebgood1 wrote: »Again I put it that you are questioning these figures without proposing an alternative.
Nor am I obliged to - that is not the way it works.jonniebgood1 wrote: »Also you are questioning the authors capabilities. I believe he is professor of History at Harvard University? Are you saying that only people who focus solely on Barbarossa can comment on the Russian campaign? If not you need to either substantiate your critisism of this author with proper evidence or alternatively drop your argument- the choice is yours...
That is not what I am saying at all. Here is part of what I said in case you missed it :
I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context. Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).0 -
That is not the way it works.
Nor am I obliged to - that is not the way it works.
That is not what I am saying at all. Here is part of what I said in case you missed it :
I would be expect anyone with a reasonable, ideologically neutral approach to the study of WW2 history to be wary of any set of statistics which introduced simplistic, definitive percentages as those from ANY theatre of the War without providing for example a margin of error, without referring to any of the information these simplistic figures are based on, what information was included what was excluded and why and so on. It would be odd from a neutral standpoint to simply accept them at face value with no qualification or context. Also I have never heard of Ferguson, he is not an acknowledged WW2 Historian with an indepth track record on this field of historiography, not least from the WW2 Barbarossa perspective (apparently he has written on the rothschilds/is working on kissingers biography, also a WW1 book to his credit).
If you are unable to back up your posts with source material to substantiate your opinion, it renders your opinion to be close to meaningless.
Firstly you have asserted that the figures I posted (and sourced to a reliable author) are incorrect. Then you are unable to back up your opinion.
I am sure there is probably a forum on boards for fiction or conspiracy theories or similar that would be more suitable for your type of unsubstatiated opinion rather than here. Please try not to destroy this thread as there were several interesting posts of proper source material prior to your unsubstatiated irrelevent contribution.0 -
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »If you are unable to back up your posts with source material to substantiate your opinion, it renders your opinion to be close to meaningless.
In order to not believe something which has not established credibility to begin with - this does not require source material.
I am not putting forward an alternate set of figures - I simply do not accept these ones. There is a difference.
For the reasons already provided these are not credible at this point. You provide no source material for those figures, nor apparently does their creator Ferguson.jonniebgood1 wrote: »Firstly you have asserted that the figures I posted (and sourced to a reliable author) are incorrect. Then you are unable to back up your opinion.
Define reliable author ? I believe he is a reliable author on the subject of Henry Kissinger, and also the subject of the rothschilds. You will find no argument from me that he is a reliable author of a book on either of those 2 subjects. That is different to what is presented here however. On what basis is this man a reliable source for the worlds first definitive WW2 Global POW mortality levels ? On the basis of what has been presented here that is a foolish assumption to make. You present a Jpeg and a link to wikipedia. That is not source material.jonniebgood1 wrote: »I am sure there is probably a forum on boards for fiction or conspiracy theories or similar that would be more suitable for your type of unsubstatiated opinion rather than here. Please try not to destroy this thread as there were several interesting posts of proper source material prior to your unsubstatiated irrelevent contribution.
That is absolute nonsense. You posted a jpeg from an author which purports to be the definitive WW2 POW mortality levels.
I gave the reasons why I do not share your blind faith and optimism in those figures, the figures do not have a shred of context or qualification. What information, what sources of information are they based on ? Which documents from which archives were consulted ? What was the authors approach to conflictive sources of information ? Which data set were chosen ? Do they include the 1.5 million missing Germans ? What other factors are and are not considered in arriving at them ? Have they been substantially peer reviewed ? What is the margin of error ? It's ludicrous to attach a jpeg screenshot of a chart which originates from wikipedia - which claims to be based on an authors work, when there is no other information to back that up whatsoever.0 -
Back to the thread subject matter- I came across images of soviet POW's
0 -
Also I came across from same page this video. Some unpleasant footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpYoEwSLCUg&feature=player_detailpage
All from http://pictureshistory.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-did-germans-treat-pow-in-russia.htm0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Also I came across from same page this video. Some unpleasant footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpYoEwSLCUg&feature=player_detailpage
All from http://pictureshistory.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-did-germans-treat-pow-in-russia.htm
That is an odd clip in my opinion. It's a mixture of Deutsche Wochenschau at the beginning then switching to soviet propaganda company footage after a certain point. Then at a later point the original soviet audio track is replaced with some kind of religious type of music.
The bulk of this appers to be benign, standard ww2 footage of lines of pows marching, german troops, a tank in a field, more troops lines of pow's then it loops back on itself. Towards the end there is footage of what appears to be soviet pow camp graveyard exhumation and christian re-burial. The amount of christian imagery is unusual given the communist attitude to christianity.
It's value in the context of this thread is unclear in my view, it does illustrate the incredible volumes of prisoners that fell into German hands during their advance (the german narrator refers to 665,000 prisoners). Beyond that it shows a grave exhumation. I am also not sure of the value of putting random internet photos into a thread like this. I have a private photograph collection which contains a lot of pictures of Russian civilians, ukranian civilians and german troops getting along fine, soldiers playing with the children and so on. No single picture tells the whole story of the war and you can find random uncaptioned pictures to illustrate just about any point you want to make whatsoever. So the value in picking ones at random for a thread like this is unclear in my view. Yes those people should not have died, but there were a lot of people who died in russian gulags (including russian pows freed from german captivity) which the russians did not make propaganda movies about, and so my point is that the information here should be balanced with that knowledge in my opinion. Otherwise it's just wartime propaganda with a modern soundtrack. Personally I would have preferred to see the original soviet footage with subtitles.0 -
I am trying to find out why these prisoners were herded into open camps and allowed to die. The purpose of the photos & video is to try and explore the conditions in the camps. Anyone who can add to this is welcomed. I have read the standard Nazi excuses as expressed at Nurembourg and suggested in this thread but I think there is more to it than this0
-
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I am trying to find out why these prisoners were herded into open camps and allowed to die. The purpose of the photos & video is to try and explore the conditions in the camps. Anyone who can add to this is welcomed. I have read the standard Nazi excuses as expressed at Nurembourg and suggested in this thread but I think there is more to it than this
You seem to be intent on repeatedly pointing out the obvious, ie the nazis were bad guys.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »You seem to be intent on repeatedly pointing out the obvious, ie the nazis were bad guys.
What relevence has this to the thread?
The thread is about world war II so I think it is naturally possible that it is going to contain information about the Nazi's being 'bad guys'. If some people think that the Nazi's are not as bad as they are portrayed, as is evident from this thread, they are welcome to post their opinions (so long as they can back up their views with justifiable source material which has'nt been the case in this thread). To simply post pro-Nazi viewpoint comments (not accusing quoted post) without backing them up is not helpful unless the poster is a renowned historian!
I would prefer to keep this on topic so as per post no. 01 the point of this thread is WHY the Germans treated the Soviet POW's worse (according to figures posted) than any other POW's in this conflict?
It would seem to me from research and also from some helpful posts that it was almost a pyschological disposition that was embedded in the German mindset at the time. In simple terms if the soldiers believed the Soviets were a lesser race of people it made it easier to disregard the killing of their POW's.0 -
What relevence has this to the thread?
I mention it because it seems to be a theme of yours carrying over from the Police Battalion 102 and Double Standard threads.The thread is about world war II so I think it is naturally possible that it is going to contain information about the Nazi's being 'bad guys'. If some people think that the Nazi's are not as bad as they are portrayed, as is evident from this thread
Care to quote which posts your talking about and justifying your comment?they are welcome to post their opinions (so long as they can back up their views with justifiable source material which has'nt been the case in this thread). To simply post pro-Nazi viewpoint comments (not accusing quoted post) without backing them up is not helpful unless the poster is a renowned historian!
What posts give "pro-nazi" comments?I would prefer to keep this on topic so as per post no. 01 the point of this thread is WHY the Germans treated the Soviet POW's worse (according to figures posted) than any other POW's in this conflict?
It would seem to me from research and also from some helpful posts that it was almost a pyschological disposition that was embedded in the German mindset at the time. In simple terms if the soldiers believed the Soviets were a lesser race of people it made it easier to disregard the killing of their POW's.
I was pretty clear in http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70390329&postcount=16 as to plausible reasons why so many soviet prisoners died. The nazi ideology from Hitler right through the hierarchy did not care whether these soldiers lived or died...until they needed them as slave labour of course. The attitudes in the Heer were more complex, probably due to being less idealogically motivated. Some commanders like Von Reichenau looked down on the Soviet soldiers whereas some like Ewald Von Kleist had a lot of respect for the russian soldiers, indeed one of the soviet charges against Kleist was "alienating, through friendship & generosity, the peoples of the Soviet Union" and individual soldiers would have had as complex and wide a range of views also.
The secondary and lesser point is that even if the Nazis had the willingness to feed and clothe 5 million plus prisoners, the Heers logistical setup was completely inadequate to take care of its own soldiers needs let alone take care of pows. There were hundreds of thousands of frostbite casualties in the winter of 1941/42, in many areas the transport system ground to a halt and german soldiers had to sometimes eat the frozen corpses of their horses. I posted sources, those books are easily available.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »I mention it because it seems to be a theme of yours carrying over from the Police Battalion 102 and Double Standard threads.
.
If I have made a point on these threads that you feel is unfair to Nazi Germany, you should question it directly on those threads. I would welcome any informative input in those discussions.BlaasForRafa wrote: »Care to quote which posts your talking about and justifying your comment?
What posts give "pro-nazi" comments?
I was pretty clear in http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70390329&postcount=16 as to plausible reasons why so many soviet prisoners died. The nazi ideology from Hitler right through the hierarchy did not care whether these soldiers lived or died...until they needed them as slave labour of course. The attitudes in the Heer were more complex, probably due to being less idealogically motivated. Some commanders like Von Reichenau looked down on the Soviet soldiers whereas some like Ewald Von Kleist had a lot of respect for the russian soldiers, indeed one of the soviet charges against Kleist was "alienating, through friendship & generosity, the peoples of the Soviet Union" and individual soldiers would have had as complex and wide a range of views also.
The secondary and lesser point is that even if the Nazis had the willingness to feed and clothe 5 million plus prisoners, the Heers logistical setup was completely inadequate to take care of its own soldiers needs let alone take care of pows. There were hundreds of thousands of frostbite casualties in the winter of 1941/42, in many areas the transport system ground to a halt and german soldiers had to sometimes eat the frozen corpses of their horses. I posted sources, those books are easily available.
Your post 16 which you link/ refer to was welcome. However it is basically the response that leading German officers gave in their defence at Nurembourg. I don't accept that it is an all-encompassing answer to my questioning of the high death rate of Soviet POW's in German care. If this was the case then surely the same rate of attrition would have applied to German prisoners in Soviet care in 1944/45?
Surely you find it acceptable to question the version of events given by the main proponents of these events.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »]Your post 16 which you link/ refer to was welcome. However it is basically the response that leading German officers gave in their defence at Nurembourg. I don't accept that it is an all-encompassing answer to my questioning of the high death rate of Soviet POW's in German care. If this was the case then surely the same rate of attrition would have applied to German prisoners in Soviet care in 1944/45?
These are well respected authors that you are discounting, not just an ordinary joe like me. I had a leaf through my old dog-eared copy of Alan Clarks "Barbarossa" which broadly confirmed the same assertions.
The circumstances in 1941/42 and 1944/45 were quite different. In 1941/42 the battlefield was in large part the barren tractless steppes of russia with its poor roads and rail system whereas the battlefield in 1944/45 was in Poland/East Prussia/Czechoslovakia/Hungary etc with much better transport links. As already stated the German transportation situation in 41/42 was pretty dire whereas in 44/45 the Soviet forces were almost fully mechanized due in no small part to plentiful american trucks supplied under the lend-lease agreements so the soviets were in a much better position to supply POWs than the germans were in 41/42
Also, you seem to just discount the russian winter of 1941/42 which even by the russians was reckoned to be the most severe in decades. The wehrmacht didn't do much to help the captured soviet troops but even if the willingness was there, what could they do given their parlous logistical situation?Surely you find it acceptable to question the version of events given by the main proponents of these events.
Of course. The war on the eastern front was so massive that we are still learning new things about it every year. However I think the thread would be helped if you put forward your own theory on events seeing as you find mine and other responses to be insufficient.0 -
BlaasForRafa wrote: »These are well respected authors that you are discounting, not just an ordinary joe like me. I had a leaf through my old dog-eared copy of Alan Clarks "Barbarossa" which broadly confirmed the same assertions.
The circumstances in 1941/42 and 1944/45 were quite different. In 1941/42 the battlefield was in large part the barren tractless steppes of russia with its poor roads and rail system whereas the battlefield in 1944/45 was in Poland/East Prussia/Czechoslovakia/Hungary etc with much better transport links. As already stated the German transportation situation in 41/42 was pretty dire whereas in 44/45 the Soviet forces were almost fully mechanized due in no small part to plentiful american trucks supplied under the lend-lease agreements so the soviets were in a much better position to supply POWs than the germans were in 41/42
Also, you seem to just discount the russian winter of 1941/42 which even by the russians was reckoned to be the most severe in decades. The wehrmacht didn't do much to help the captured soviet troops but even if the willingness was there, what could they do given their parlous logistical situation?
I don't doubt in any way the authors you quoted as being a valid basis for your opinion. My point was that it was not an all encompassing answer to the question of the mortality rate of Soviet POW. The points of logistical difficulties and harsh winter are accepted as contributary factors. I would make the point that in a logistical sense the Wehrmacht managed successfully to move their own troops and equipment until late 1941 so if there had been a will to provide for the POW's, it would have been achievable. It was also after all the winter which had stopped them in late november 1941 outside Moscow (at the end of the period which saw the heaviest death tolls of Soviet POW's). Thus I believe there must have been more to it than these 2 reasons.BlaasForRafa wrote: »The war on the eastern front was so massive that we are still learning new things about it every year. However I think the thread would be helped if you put forward your own theory on events seeing as you find mine and other responses to be insufficient.
I agree about the eastern front lack of information. The scale of warfare on the eastern front dwarfs that of the whole battle for western europe, Italy, Africa and indeed the Pacific yet the information availiable is in direct contrast to these arenas. For example there is a wealth of first hand accounts availiable about western allies experiences as POW's but not of Soviet or German POW's experiences in the eastern conflict. This should not be mistaken as one sided as in post 42- I would welcome any information also on German prisoners who were held in Soviet Gulags as punishment after the war ended as this is another under explored area.
My own theory is not important as I am still trying to get more information to base it upon. If it helps though it is as I said here
This view would put alot of the blame on the wehrmacht officer classes who were the people who knowingly pushed on under orders with expansionary plans with the full knowledge of what was happening to both POW's and civilians.It would seem to me from research and also from some helpful posts that it was almost a pyschological disposition that was embedded in the German mindset at the time. In simple terms if the soldiers believed the Soviets were a lesser race of people it made it easier to disregard the killing of their POW's.0 -
There was a query relating to repatriation of Soviet POW's on their return to Russia at the end of the war, particularly regarding the nature of the camps they went through on the way towards repatriation. The popular misconceptions in relation to this are dealt with here:According to popular belief, almost all of them went straight to the Gulag. Varlam Shalamov in “The Final Battle of Major Pugachoff” wrote: “... ship after ship were repatriated – from Italy, France and Germany – along a direct road to the extreme northeast.” It is hardly necessary to explain that there was no direct communication between Europe and the far northeast (i.e., Kolyma) – not after the war, nor at any other time. It is appropriate, however, to recall the popular expression at the time “we simply don’t just get arrested.” Returnees should have understood this literally.
Full publication at:In general, before the end of the war, about 8% of former prisoners were subjected to various types of repression, including those who by March 1944 had not yet been verified and remained in the camps. Taking into account the prisoners who were released after the war, the proportion who were repressed increased to 14.69% (226,127 people). This can be explained by the fact that many collaborators who were among the prisoners sought as long as possible to delay their encounter with Soviet troops and evacuated toward the west with the retreating Germans. The remaining 85% of former war prisoners, or 1,313,348 people, were sent to their place of residence, enlisted in the army, joined the labor battalions, or temporarily remained at the assembly transit points and worked there.
With respect to the civilian returnees, the percentage of those who were repressed or transferred to the NKVD, as written in official documents, was considerably smaller – 1.76% (46,740). Of those remaining, 2,146,126 were sent to their places of residence, 141,962 were drafted into the army, 263,647 were enrolled in work battalions, and 61,538 remained at the assembly points.
http://www.russkiymir.ru/russkiymir/en/publications/articles/article0015.html0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »You are correct that the USSR did not sign the 1929 convention which detailed treatment of POW's. However Germany did sign it and generally speaking upheld it with treatment of British/ American prisoners. Having signed it Germany was duty bound to abide by its contents, even when dealing with nations that had not signed it. This was dealt with under article 82 of the treaty. Their treatment of their own soldiers who were captured was reprehensible and reflected the general lack of value placed on human life by the USSR at the time (Ukraine famine, purges, etc).
Of course, sticking to the letter of the treaty was what EVERY side should have done in the war, but the fact is that none did.
One must also be aware of the obvious, in that why would a nation put in place the care that the conventions stipulate, when the enemy nation isn’t going to bother taking care of your men? Regardless of whether they were a signatory or not. It really wouldn't make any kind of logic, despite what the conventions stated.
Plus, one also has to take into account the fact that Germany just didn't have the resources to actually take care of the millions of Soviet POW's they found at their disposal. I dare say that ANY Nation would have had very serious problems accommodating the sort of numbers that the Germans had to deal with during the war, in such a short space of time to and with the shooting still going on.
Most of the deaths of POWs happened in the first 6 months of Barbarossa. The incredibly harsh winter, which started in September (a mere 3 months after the beginning of the invasion) being a huge factor in their demise. The Wehrmacht hadn't even the winter equipment that they needed themselves, so it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that the High Command also failed to implement measures to protect the huge numbers of POWs from the ravages of the Russian winter too. It's just one more element of shambolic nature of some of the planning for Barbarossa that went on.
They simply didn't expect the war with Russia to go on into 1942 and that's really the bottom line.
Hitler was supposed to have said on the eve of the invasion that "All one has to do is kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down." He was expecting a short war with a favourable conclusion. There was little, if any, thought given to what was to be done if Russia didn't fall apart and managed to actually make a fight of it. It's incredible to think, but Hitler didn't think beyond the conclusion of the war with the Soviets at all.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »It is hard to believe that, but the statistics I quoted from should not be taken lightly.
That depends. Are those figures JUST for the war, or do they include POW deaths after the war ended?
I personally know a man who was in the RAD, who was captured in 1943 and spent 10 years in a Soviet labour camp. He said the death toll among prisoners was staggering. Even the Soviet citizens were outraged at their treatment.0 -
Of course, sticking to the letter of the treaty was what EVERY side should have done in the war, but the fact is that none did.
One must also be aware of the obvious, in that why would a nation put in place the care that the conventions stipulate, when the enemy nation isn’t going to bother taking care of your men? Regardless of whether they were a signatory or not. It really wouldn't make any kind of logic, despite what the conventions stated.
.
I am inclined to agree with this. However, Finland for example was in a similar position to the Germans but they actually abided by the terms of the 1929 treaty despite the USSR not recipricating this. They did this as they had signed the treaty.Plus, one also has to take into account the fact that Germany just didn't have the resources to actually take care of the millions of Soviet POW's they found at their disposal. I dare say that ANY Nation would have had very serious problems accommodating the sort of numbers that the Germans had to deal with during the war, in such a short space of time to and with the shooting still going on.
Most of the deaths of POWs happened in the first 6 months of Barbarossa. The incredibly harsh winter, which started in September (a mere 3 months after the beginning of the invasion) being a huge factor in their demise. The Wehrmacht hadn't even the winter equipment that they needed themselves, so it's hardly a stretch of the imagination that the High Command also failed to implement measures to protect the huge numbers of POWs from the ravages of the Russian winter too. It's just one more element of shambolic nature of some of the planning for Barbarossa that went on.
.
These are the reasons given at Nurembourg and are taken on board. The timing of the events does'nt fit in 100% with this though. The main casualties in POW camps were from August 1941 to Jan/ Feb 1942 but the German offensive did not falter until late november. The point being they were able to manage the logistics of moving troops and heavy armoury long after the POW's were dying by the thousand.
They remained POW's after the war I presume. I don't dispute that the Germans retained in Labour camps were treated appalingly. I would be interested in more information about the RAD man if you have more- sounds very interesting.That depends. Are those figures JUST for the war, or do they include POW deaths after the war ended?
I personally know a man who was in the RAD, who was captured in 1943 and spent 10 years in a Soviet labour camp. He said the death toll among prisoners was staggering. Even the Soviet citizens were outraged at their treatment. .
.0 -
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I am inclined to agree with this. However, Finland for example was in a similar position to the Germans but they actually abided by the terms of the 1929 treaty despite the USSR not recipricating this. They did this as they had signed the treaty.
Hmmm, did they? Around 30% (or 19,000) of Russian POWs died in Finnish captivity during the war and that was from a fairly palty haul, compared to what the Germans had to manage.jonniebgood1 wrote: »These are the reasons given at Nurembourg and are taken on board. The timing of the events does'nt fit in 100% with this though. The main casualties in POW camps were from August 1941 to Jan/ Feb 1942 but the German offensive did not falter until late november. The point being they were able to manage the logistics of moving troops and heavy armoury long after the POW's were dying by the thousand.
So, what your saying is that the Germans should have negelcted their own men fighting a war in favor of the enemies men? An enemy who wouldn't feel obliged to reciprocate such? Or, didn't think twice about executing German POWs on the spot. That doesn't make any kind of sense. No nation would do that.
Also, just because the Germans managed to "move troops" doesn't mean that they weren't in an absolutely dire situation at the end of 1941. Nor, is ot proof that they could have taken better care of Russian POWs on the Russian front.
From September to around Feburary, the German situation in the East was quite perilous due to outstretching supply lines and the Soviet counter offensive. In fact, it only stabilised in the Spring of 1942.
The Western image of Barbarossa is usually one of extreme ease for the Germans, but the fact is that at no time, since day 1 of the invasion did the Germans have it all their own way. The hardships they endured during the war with Russia is often lost among images of panzers racing across the open Steppe and the vast amount of territory ceded by the Red Army. territory that they could well afford to lose. But, such images don't tell the whole story. not by a long shot.jonniebgood1 wrote: »They remained POW's after the war I presume. I don't dispute that the Germans retained in Labour camps were treated appalingly. I would be interested in more information about the RAD man if you have more- sounds very interesting.
My point about the POW figures is that the stats posted are not accurate if they don't figure in the German POWs that died after the war came to an end.
I might elaborate some more on the RAD chap later. but, I gotta go for now.0 -
Hmmm, did they? Around 30% (or 19,000) of Russian POWs died in Finnish captivity during the war and that was from a fairly palty haul, compared to what the Germans had to manage.
.
I should have sourced my information. I took the point I made regarding the Finns abiding by Geneva from Article no 839 of the International Review of the Red Cross by Tigran S. Drambyan.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jqq9.htmAlthough the Soviet Union was not a party to the 1929 Prisoner-of-War Convention, Finland treated its prisoners according to the Law of Geneva. Thus ICRC delegates visited the POW camps, and prisoners received food and medical assistance from various Red Cross Societies. In the autumn of 1944 they were repatriated to the Soviet Union.
I agree this does not tally with the wikipedia figure of 30% death rate although it does state malnutrition and diseases as reasons.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I should have sourced my information. I took the point I made regarding the Finns abiding by Geneva from Article no 839 of the International Review of the Red Cross by Tigran S. Drambyan.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jqq9.htm
I agree this does not tally with the wikipedia figure of 30% death rate although it does state malnutrition and diseases as reasons.
The Finnish harvest in 1941 was bad, they had to import emergency supplies of grain from Germany.0 -
Mr Drambyan's comments don't really jive with me, I'm afraid.
"...not much has been written about the situation of those members of the Soviet armed forces who were held in captivity by Finland between 1941 and 1944. Yet between June and September 1941 close to 65,000 officers and men of the Red Army were taken prisoner, many of whom were wounded. Although the Soviet Union was not a party to the 1929 Prisoner-of-War Convention, Finland treated its prisoners according to the Law of Geneva. Thus ICRC delegates visited the POW camps, and prisoners received food and medical assistance from various Red Cross Societies. In the autumn of 1944 they were repatriated to the Soviet Union. Not much is known about how they fared after their return to their home country."
If 19,000 of the 65,000 Soviet POWs died in Finnish captivity, then that's not a very good application of the "Law of Geneva" regarding caring for prisoners of war, imo.
God alone knows what the death toll would have been if the Finns had captured a 1/2 million POWs in one go, like the Germans did at Kiev.0 -
So, what your saying is that the Germans should have negelcted their own men fighting a war in favor of the enemies men? An enemy who wouldn't feel obliged to reciprocate such? Or, didn't think twice about executing German POWs on the spot. That doesn't make any kind of sense. No nation would do that.
Also, just because the Germans managed to "move troops" doesn't mean that they weren't in an absolutely dire situation at the end of 1941. Nor, is ot proof that they could have taken better care of Russian POWs on the Russian front.
From September to around Feburary, the German situation in the East was quite perilous due to outstretching supply lines and the Soviet counter offensive. In fact, it only stabilised in the Spring of 1942.
The Western image of Barbarossa is usually one of extreme ease for the Germans, but the fact is that at no time, since day 1 of the invasion did the Germans have it all their own way. The hardships they endured during the war with Russia is often lost among images of panzers racing across the open Steppe and the vast amount of territory ceded by the Red Army. territory that they could well afford to lose. But, such images don't tell the whole story. not by a long shot.
.
The difficulties you list are valid. They were however repeated in reverse as the Red army drove the Germans back across eastern europe. The infrastructure was destroyed, the supply distances similar and conditions similar. They took 1.5 million axis POW's over only 6 months in winter conditions in late 44, early 45. I'm not arguing that they treated them well- the figures show that the death rate of German POW was up to similar levels to the much maligned Japanese camps had. It was still only half of that that the Soviet POW in German camps had. The same argument about neglecting your own troops, etc, could also be applied in reverse.0 -
However, it's not quite the same is it?
The German offensive in the East was on the brink of utter collapse in 1941. The Soviet Winter bit hard and it was devastating to an army that had not prepared well at all for it.
The Red Army, on the other hand, was probably the second best equipped in the world, after the US Army and was in absolute ascendancy in 1944.
They are two very different scenarios.
But, as I have already said, no nation is going to put the welfare of enemy POWs before its own men. The Soviets are no different.0 -
However, it's not quite the same is it?
The German offensive in the East was on the brink of utter collapse in 1941. The Soviet Winter bit hard and it was devastating to an army that had not prepared well at all for it.
The Red Army, on the other hand, was probably the second best equipped in the world, after the US Army and was in absolute ascendancy in 1944.
They are two very different scenarios.
But, as I have already said, no nation is going to put the welfare of enemy POWs before its own men. The Soviets are no different.
As an aside regardiong your last point- the German POW's in Britain for example got better rations than the civilian population in the period following end of war. This was also true of POW labour groups in Normandy where they were better fed and clothed than the local workers in rebuilding projects in 1945. The line between feeding and sheltering enemy POW's did vary from country to country with welfare in the east seeing bigger divergence between the opposing sides than in western europe.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »As an aside regardiong your last point- the German POW's in Britain for example got better rations than the civilian population in the period following end of war. This was also true of POW labour groups in Normandy where they were better fed and clothed than the local workers in rebuilding projects in 1945.
Says who?
Frankly, I don't believe it.
My father was demobbed in Britain at the time and my mother was an evacuee from Guernsey in 1940, living in the midlands. They didn't want for food, so that must mean the German POWs were living in the lap of luxury. An idea which is quite ridiculous.
German POWs were treated quite well in Britain, no doubt and plenty of Germans have stated that they received decent treatment for the most part, in much the same way that the Western Allied POWs of the Germans received decent treatment for as long as situations allowed. The war in general was a very different affair in Western Europe, than it was in Eastern Europe, in every way.
But, the idea that they were better of than the locals is silly.
Also, there were German POWs who were kept as forced labour in Britain for years after the war ended, made to work on building projects that often had nothing to do with normal war reparations, directly contravening the Geneva conventions, which stated that all POWs should be repatriated upon cessation of hostilities.
While there is certainly no comparison between the treatment of POWs in the West and East, it isn't quite asrosy as you're painting it.
That said, the German POWs were certainly better off remaining in captivity than their families (what was left of them) back home, where post war life, especially in the Russian occupied areas had become a living nightmare.0 -
Says who?
Frankly, I don't believe it.
My father was demobbed in Britain at the time and my mother was an evacuee from Guernsey in 1940, living in the midlands. They didn't want for food, so that must mean the German POWs were living in the lap of luxury. An idea which is quite ridiculous.
...........
But, the idea that they were better of than the locals is silly.
............
You may not believe it, we all can pick what we want to believe- The point I made is properly sourced, it comes from 'Liberation' by William Hitchcock, the Normandy reference is page 55 where the author states that the locals had greivance as the German POW road building crews, "were given better rations and clothing by the allies than the French themselves enjoyed". I think the author is genuinely respected (rather than ridiculous or silly!!!) but you can check this yourself and correct me if necessary.While there is certainly no comparison between the treatment of POWs in the West and East, it isn't quite asrosy as you're painting it.
That said, the German POWs were certainly better off remaining in captivity than their families (what was left of them) back home, where post war life, especially in the Russian occupied areas had become a living nightmare.
I don't in any way suggest that any of these prisoners had it 'rosy'.
I believe the Russian occupied areas were not rebuilt untill the late 50's in places, they understandedly concentrated on their own countries rebuilding first.0 -
Advertisement
-
jonniebgood1 wrote: »You may not believe it, we all can pick what we want to believe- The point I made is properly sourced...
Just because you've dragged something from a book or online that suits your particular, present, POV doesn't doesn’t necessarily mean it's been "properly sourced" though. You're simply parroting information that you like.
There may be other sources that differ wildly. The secret is in corroborating various pieces of information and making your own mind up. Which, at the end of the day, is really all we have when studying history. Especially the history of the Second World War.
We're talking about a considerable number of people here, not just a select few and all encompassing statements like "German POWs were better fed than X" doesn't really mean all that much.
Perhaps some quarters were better fed at certain stages. Perhaps there are documents stating that POWs were to receive X amount of food etc, but the reality on the ground may have been very different, who knows. In my experience, the "paperwork" of WWII rarely stacked up to the reality.
But the blanket statement remains rather silly, no matter who it's from.0
Advertisement